Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp. et al
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Compel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 5/13/2013. (Minerva, Deanna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALANNA M. KENNEDY,
CV 12-2664 (JFB) (ETB)
CONTRACT PHARMACAL CORP., and
This is a Title VII action wherein the plaintiff, Alanna M. Kennedy, seeks damages
arising from alleged acts of gender discrimination and hostile work environment, sexual
harassment and retaliation against the defendant employer, Contract Pharmacal Corp. (“CPC”),
and Matthew Wolf, the corporate defendant CEO.
The defendants seek to compel responses to interrogatory requests numbers 9 and 10.
Plaintiff objects on the ground that the interrogatories are narrative in nature and should be
covered by a deposition and on the ground that the interrogatories exceed twenty-five, including
discrete subparts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). I agree. The interrogatories, while sixteen in
number, contain twenty-seven subparts and are therefore excessive in number. See Cramer v.
Fedco Aut. Components Co., Inc., No. 01-CV-0757E, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13817, at *14
(W.D.N.Y. May 26, 2004) (denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to interrogatories
where interrogatories, including subparts, exceeded twenty-five); Riddle v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.,
No. 00 Civ. 1374, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14378, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2003) (“Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(a) limits the number of interrogatories available to each party to twenty-five, ‘including all
In addition, the interrogatories basically seek narrative information that may more readily
be developed at a deposition, e.g., “identify the nature of and describe the allegedly
discriminatory and harassing conduct,” persons present, dates and locations where discriminatory
acts occurred and the circumstances relating to any reporting. See Interrogatory No. 10. Similar
issues are raised solely addressed to any alleged retaliatory acts. See Interrogatory No. 10. These
issues, narrative in nature, should be pursued at a deposition. See E*Trade Fin. Corp. v.
Deutsche Bank, AG, No. 05 Civ. 902, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82428, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10,
2006) (“To the extent that Plaintiffs seek long narrative explanations of underlying assumptions
and methodologies, they have not shown that interrogatories are a more practical means of
discovery than depositions.”); Rivers v. Safesite Nat’l Bus. Records Mgmt. Corp., No. 94 Civ.
5323, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 1995) (striking defendants’
interrogatories because they “call[ed] for repeated detailed narratives of the events at issue in
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel interrogatory responses is denied.
The defendants also seek to compel the following document demands: (1) “[a]ll
documents concerning, relating to, reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff’s utilization of social
networking sites,” Document Request No. 11; (2) “[a]ll documents, including, but not limited to
postings, concerning, relating to, reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff’s expression of an
emotional feeling while utilizing a social networking site,” Document Request No. 12; and (3)
“[a]ll documents, including, but not limited to postings, concerning, relating to, reflecting and/or
regarding Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants while utilizing a social networking site,”
Document Request No. 13. Plaintiff objects on the ground that all of these requests are “vague,
overly broad, and unduly burdensome.” Id.
The objections are sustained. There is no specificity to the requests and no effort to limit
these requests to any relevant acts alleged in this action. Lacking relevance and specificity, the
requests are vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Pegoraro v. Marrero, 281 F.R.D.
122, 133 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2012) (sustaining vagueness objection where document request used
phrase “acts involving the conduct of plaintiff”); Kelleher v. City of New York, No. CV-062702, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1831, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2007) (sustaining defendant’s
objections to document requests where “court fails to see the relevance of the requested
information to the plaintiff’s claims”).
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to compel is denied.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
May 13, 2013
/s/ E. Thomas Boyle
E. THOMAS BOYLE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?